“It’s a watershed moment for the country that the highest court in the land has determined ... the federal government should not be discriminating against” legally married same-sex couples, said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who endorsed gay marriage in March in a surprise reversal. “I think it’s a great decision.”

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said a key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — which defined marriage as between one man and one woman — was unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause.

In a second decision, the court did not rule on the merits of California’s same-sex marriage ban, known as Prop 8, saying instead that supporters didn’t have the legal ability to appeal a lower court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the nation’s largest state. The high court’s decision will allow gay marriages to go forward in California — but it doesn’t change any other state marriage laws.

Springfield-area Republican lawmakers were outraged by both decisions, but DOMA in particular.

“The court got it wrong” in the DOMA case, said Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Harrisonville. She called the court’s decision an “activist ruling” and an “alarming precedent” that undercuts congressional powers.

Rep. Billy Long, R-Springfield, echoed that argument.

“I have always opposed legislating from the bench, and this is the latest example of that disturbing trend,” he said in a statement. “I think this issue should be decided by the American people through their elected representatives.”

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and it was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. It blocked gay and lesbian couples from accessing more than 1,000 federal programs and benefits. For example, DOMA prevented married same-sex couples from filing their taxes jointly and prohibited a widowed gay spouse from collecting a deceased partner’s Social Security benefits.

(Page 2 of 2)

For homosexual couples living in one of the 13 states, plus the District of Columbia, that currently allow same-sex marriage, Wednesday’s ruling opens the door for them to secure all those benefits. But for couples living in Missouri and other states that ban same-sex marriage — even if they get married in a state that allows such unions — the impact is not so clear.

“It’s very uncertain right now,” said Susan Jane Becker, a law professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and expert on sexual orientation and the law. “This is going to be a big issue” in all 36 states that ban same-sex marriages.

Becker said the problem stems from different federal definitions of marriage. Some federal agencies base marriage rights on where the license was issued, so the federal benefits would follow the couple; but other federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration, look at whether a couple’s marriage is recognized in the state where they live.

Which definition is used, Becker said, “can make a huge difference” in a family’s life. It will affect whether one partner in a gay union is taxed on her spouse’s health insurance costs, for example, and whether a widowed spouse is taxed when he inherits his partner’s estate.

Gay-rights groups are already pushing the Obama administration to use its executive powers to apply the ruling as broadly as possible. In a statement, the Human Rights Campaign urged the president to “take whatever further action is necessary to ensure that the largest number of lesbian and gay married couples are able to access the widest array of benefits and protections under federal law.”

One thing that is clear: Nothing in Wednesday’s twin Supreme Court rulings changes Missouri’s constitutional amendment, passed in 2004, banning same-sex marriage. Same-gender couples will still not have the right to get married in Missouri. And they will not have their marriages — even if performed outside the state in a jurisdiction that allows such unions — recognized by Missouri.